Evolutionists promote the view that scientists support Evolutionism and reject evidence for design. But this is false. Many eminent scientists accept the Argument from Design. This article and its prequels/sequels present quotations from a number of prominent scientists who have been convinced by the Argument from Design.

Dr. Benjamin S. Carson

The previous article on Carson surveyed his scientific credentials and awards and discussed his views on the 1. Complex Design exhibited by the brain, by cells, and by living organisms. This second article looks at what Carson says about

2. Fossils

Evolutionists almost always point to fossils as supposedly definitive evidence for evolution. However, in the Gallagher interview Carson dismantled the common claim that “fossils prove evolution.”

“Even if you accept evolutionary theory–developing a more sophisticated organism in this theoretically “logical” fashion, then there should be a continuum of organisms. And why did evolution divert in so many directions–birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans–if there is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn’t everything a human–a superior human? Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven’t found them. Even the earliest fossils don’t show such intermediates.

Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and humans. But we don’t have them. We have very few supposed intermediates–like “Lucy,” based on fanciful reconstruction with a lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link. So “Lucy” does not make the case, and there should be multiple “Lucys” if the transition from ape to human were true.”
(From “Evolution? No. I don’t have enough faith. A conversation with Dr. Ben Carson,” interview by Jonathan Gallagher in the Adventist Review, February 26, 2004.)

People swallow “Fossils prove evolution” without evaluating the specifics. Here Carson directly challenges that claim by pointing out that the fossil record actually contradicts the theory of macro-evolution.

If evolutionism were true, transitional fossils should totally dominate and overwhelm the fossil record. Additionally, the vast majority of living forms today would be intermediates, evolving from one stage to another. Yet today’s forms are essentially indistinguishable from the oldest fossils supposedly millions of years old. If evolutionism were true, there would be no question as to the validity of the evolutionary hypothesis. The evidence would be plain before us every day. The lack of evidence is conclusive.

It’s not a question of just finding a “missing link.” Evolutionists have to find trillions of “missing links.”

And they don’t have enough “time” in which to fit all the missing intermediate forms. Earth and life are only 6,000 years old.

But even with the supposed evolutionary age of the earth of 4.5 billion years, that is far too short a time period for trillions upon trillions upon trillions of distinct intermediate organisms to evolve leading up to all present day life forms. Even if you assume a hyper-conservative value of one trillion transitional forms would be sufficient to develop all life from molecules, 4.5 billion years is not enough time. It would require about 4 successful transitional forms to emerge per week! At this rate it should be easy to see them in the fossil record and see them emerging in the present. But they are completely absent.

The abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil record without intermediates is exactly what one would expect to find if plants and animals were created. However, it is contrary to what one would expect if the hypothesis of evolution were true.

In Carson’s own book, Take the Risk (pictured at top), he explicitly says there’s no fossil evidence for evolution, even after 150 years of searching for it since Darwin.

“It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!” … I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response.”
(From Carson, Take the Risk, Zondervan, 2008, p.130.)

One kind of animal never evolved into another kind of animal. Yahweh created distinct kinds of animals and provided for continuation of life through reproduction “according to kind” (Genesis 1:24). “After their kind” is repeated 10 times in Genesis 1 for emphasis. Kinds don’t transition into other kinds.

There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record because evolution of one kind into another kind never happened.

Dr. Ben Carson is a world-renowned neurosurgeon who has advanced medicine in many fundamental ways. He is someone who “understands science,” as his dozens of honorary doctorates and tremendous achievements in medicine demonstrate. Yet he vigorously and rigorously disputes evolutionism. He says there is no evidence of one kind of life ever changing into another kind.

The next article will discuss what Carson says about3. Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution.

Questions to Ponder

If the fossil record actually fits the Creation model of origins better than the Evolution model, why do scientists keep citing the fossil record as evidence for evolution?

If the evolution of one kind of life into another kind has never been observed in life or in fossils, shouldn’t the theory of evolution be considered an unscientific theory since the scientific method requires observation, repeatable results, and testing?

Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23)

Responses

Coelacanth. Long thought extinct millions of years ago. Only to be found off the coast of Chile. Then more were found. Identical to the specimens in the fossil record. No hint of change .. or evolution. Carbon dating is equally misleading, and not entirely accurate.